When the Taboo Breaks: Tracking the Impact of Core-State Attacks on International Organizations

Washington’s recent efforts to confront, co-opt, or hollow out UN agencies, the International Criminal Court, and other foundational institutions of global governance exemplify a broader challenge posed by right-wing populism in core countries to the International Liberal Order. This paper advances an AI-based methodological approach to tracking and analyzing the evolving rhetoric and policy decisions concerning international organizations (IOs) articulated by right-wing populist actors and their political opponents. It centers on a key question: what happens to IOs when core states dismantle the normative taboo against openly attacking the institutions underpinning the ILO? The proposed methodology rests on three pillars: AI-driven actor selection and data collection; non-AI decision tracking combined with qualitative discourse analysis; and a robust outreach and impact strategy aimed at producing data-driven content on the topic. Empirically, the study aims to examine twelve political parties across six countries, encompassing core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral positions in the international system using a case-oriented approach. By comparing right-wing populist actors in government and in opposition, the research aims to offer a broad, comparative perspective on their capacity to shape rhetoric and policy decisions regarding IOs.